Feminists often complain, with considerable justification, that Men’s Rights Activists try to turn every conversation about women’s issues into a game of “what about the men?” You’re talking about female rape victims — well, what about the male rape victims?
The trouble with this strategy, from the point of view of the Men’s Rights Activists anyway, is that this little “gotcha” is much less of a “gotcha” then they’d like it to be.
In the case of rape, for example, feminists are well aware that men are raped as well: the “Don’t Be That Guy” ad campaign, which sent so many MRAs into hysterics, focused on male victims as well as female ones. The emergency room rape advocate organization that a friend of mine volunteers for provides advocacy for victims regardless of gender.
So many MRAs have started playing another game: trying to twist the conversation around in order to cast women as the villains. Rape is a bit tough for them here, since the overwhelming majority of rapists are male. So MRAs talk about the alleged epidemic of female false accusers instead. Or they change the topic entirely and make dead baby jokes (see my post yesterday).
Recently, MRAs have tried a new strategy, seizing on data from The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, a massive study conducted in 2010 under the aegis of the Centers for Disease Control, to claim that “40% of rapists are women.”
This is a claim repeated by numerous MRAs on numerous websites; see, for example, this post by A Voice for Men’s Typhonblue on the blog GendErratic. Here’s the same claim made into an “infographic” for the Men’s Rights subreddit.
Trouble is, this claim is flat-out false, based on an incorrect understanding of the NISVS data. But you don’t have to take my word for it: the NISVS researchers themselves say the MRA “interpretation” of their data is based on bad math. It’s not just a question of different definitions of rape: the MRA claims are untenable even if you include men who were “made to penetrate” women as victims of rape (as the MRAs do) rather than as victims of “sexual violence other than rape” (as the NISVS does).
I wrote to the NISVS for clarification of this matter recently, and got back a detailed analysis, straight from the horse’s mouth, of where the MRA arguments went wrong. This is long, and a bit technical, but it’s also pretty definitive, so it’s worth quoting in detail. (I’ve bolded some of the text below for emphasis, and broken some of the larger walls of text into shorter paragraphs.)
It appears that the math used to derive an estimated percentage of female rapists … is flawed. First, we will summarize the assertion and what we perceive to be the basis for the assertion.
According to the web links, the “40% of rapists were women” was derived from these two steps:
1) Combining the estimated number of female rape victims with the estimated number of being-made-to-penetrate male victims in the 12 months prior to the survey to conclude that about 50% of the rape or being-made-to-penetrate victims were males;
2) Multiplying the estimated percentage (79%) of male being-made-to-penetrate victims who reported having had female perpetrators in these victims’ lifetime with the 50% obtained in step 1 to claim that 40% of perpetrators of rape or being-made-to-penetrate were women.
None of these calculations should be used nor can these conclusions be correctly drawn from these calculations.
First the researchers clarify the issue of definition:
To explain, in NISVS we define rape as “any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.”
We defined sexual violence other than rape to include being made to penetrate someone else, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual experiences. Made to penetrate is defined as including “times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victim’s consent because the victim was physically forced (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.”
The difference between “rape” and “being made to penetrate” is that in the definition of rape the victim is penetrated; “made to penetrate” by definition refers to cases where the victim penetrated someone else.
While there are multiple definitions of rape and sexual violence used in the field, CDC, with the help of experts in the field, has developed these specific definitions of rape and other forms of sexual violence (such as made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual experiences). We use these definitions to help guide our analytical decisions.
Now the researchers get into the details of the math:
Regarding the specific assertion in question, several aspects of mistreatments of the data and the published estimates occurred in the above derivation:
A. While the percentage of female rape victims and the percentage of male being-made-to-penetrate victims were inferred from the past 12-month estimates by combining two forms of violence, the percentage of perpetrator by sex was taken from reported estimates for males for lifetime (a misuse of the percentage of male victims who reported only female perpetrators in their lifetime being made to penetrate victimization). This mismatch of timeframes is incorrect because the past 12-month victimization cannot be stretched to equate with lifetime victimization. In fact, Table 2.1 and 2.2 of the NISVS 2010 Summary Report clearly report that lifetime rape victimization of females (estimated at 21,840,000) is about 4 times the number of lifetime being made-to-penetrate of males (estimated at 5,451,000).
B. An arithmetic confusion appears when multiplying the two percentages together to conclude that the product is a percentage of all the “rapists”, an undefined perpetrator population. Multiplying the percentage of male victims (as derived in step 1) above) to the percentage of male victims who had female perpetrators cannot give a percentage of perpetrators mathematically because to get a percentage of female rape perpetrators, one must have the total rape perpetrators (the denominator), and the number of female perpetrators of this specific violence (the numerator). Here, neither the numerator nor the denominator was available.
C. Data collected and analyzed for the NISVS 2010 have a “one-to-multiple” structure (where the “one” refers to one victim and the “multiple” refers to multiple perpetrators). While not collected, it is conceivable that any perpetrator could have multiple victims. These multiplicities hinder any attempt to get a percentage of perpetrators such as the one described in steps 1) and 2), and nullify the reverse calculation for obtaining a percent of perpetrators.
For example, consider an example in which a girl has eight red apples while a boy has two green apples. Here, 50% of the children are boys and another 50% are girls. It is not valid to multiply 50% (boy) with 100% (boy’s green apples) to conclude that “50% of all the apples combined are green”. It is clear that only 20% of all the apples are green (two out of 10 apples) when one combines the red and green apples together. Part of the mistake in the deriving of the “50%” stems from a negligence to take into account the inherent multiplicity: a child can have multiple apples (just as a victim can have multiple perpetrators).
D. As the study population is U.S. adults in non-institutional settings, the sample was designed to be representative of the study population, not the perpetrator population (therefore no sampling or weighting is done for the undefined universe of perpetrators). Hence, while the data can be analyzed to make statistical inferences about the victimization of U.S. adults residing in non-institutional settings, the NISVS data are incapable of lending support to any national estimates of the perpetrator population, let alone estimates of perpetrators of a specific form of violence (say, rape or being-made-to-penetrate).
E. Combining the estimated past 12-month female rape victims with the estimated past 12-month being-made-to-penetrate male victims cannot give an accurate number of all victims who were either raped or being-made-to-penetrate, even if this combination is consistent with CDC’s definition.
Besides a disagreement with the definitions of the various forms of violence given in the NISVS 2010 Summary Report, this approach of combining the 12-month estimated number of female rape victims with the 12-month estimated number of male victims misses victims in the cells where reliable estimates were not reported due to small cell counts failing to meet statistical reliability criteria. For any combined form of violence, the correct analytical approach for obtaining a national estimate is to start at the raw data level of analysis, if such a creation of a combined construct is established.
So you’re going to need to go back to the drawing board, MRAs.
What is especially distressing here is that the NISVS data could have been the starting point for a serious discussion of male victims of sexual assault by women, which is a real and often overlooked issue. Unfortunately, MRAs have once again poisoned the well by misusing data in an attempt to exaggerate the purported villainy of women and score cheap rhetorical points.
NOTE: A regular in the AgainstMensRights subreddit approached the NISVS researchers with this same question some months back. Unfortunately, the statement they got back from the NISVS contained an incorrect number. The statement I’m quoting here corrects this number and adds more context.
I can provide contact info for the NISVS representative who got back to me on this to any serious (non-troll) person who requests it.
Alex, learn to HTML. While you’re at it, learn to logic.
My favorite has to be that since the study asking people if they’d been victimized cannot say anything about perpetrators, that makes all 120~ pages useless.
Second favorite — just give us the raw data!
I’m beginning to hope they do release it, because damn would I enjoy watching MRAs realize they have no idea what to do with hundreds of thousands of data points. (To put this in perspective, because of the religion section, the survey here produced ~35,000 data points [most of them saying “nope, that’s not my religion” but they’re still cells in a table that you need to sort through])
Uh…I dropped a 0. Make that close to 40,000 when I stop rounding 1,600 to 1,500 since clearly doing it mentally was fail.
And that’s a sample size of 1,640, where most of the questions weren’t used in combination with each other. I truly wish them well sorting the CDC data.
400,000
Why does that 0 hate me?!
@Argenti
Because you won’t release the NISVS raw data!!!!
The NISVS covers intimate partner violence and stalking as well as sexual violence. The report is a valuable resource, but it’s a survey of victims’ experiences and can’t magically provide data about perpetrators. I don’t think you can reason with people who think there is a mass conspiracy to suppress data about female (or male) rapists, but maybe I’m just blinded by my misandry.
It’s a
FurrinatiFeminazi conspiracy! PROOF!Here’s some assorted responses:
>And no, you cannot draw conclusions about perpetrators from a study about victims.
Allright. Do you dispute MRA claims that men “forced to penetrate” ought to be counted as rape victims? And if they are, do you dispute that the percentage of male and female victims is at least much closer to equal than commonly believed?
>The “Don’t Be That Guy” posters focused on male rapists because, yes, the majority of rapes are committed by men.
Yes, but the writer specifically pointed out that campaign having “focused on male victims”, which is a lie.
>And nobody is using the NIPSVS to determine the percentage of rapes committed by men.
Fair enough.
>Alex, learn to HTML. While you’re at it, learn to logic.
Sorry, would you care to teach me? Some sites use the >, some use
>My favorite has to be that since the study asking people if they’d been victimized cannot say anything about perpetrators, that makes all 120~ pages useless.
That wasn’t my point. The paragraph I was responding to seemed to be saying that the study’s data couldn’t even be used to gauge the number of victims. That struck me odd because it seems like it’d be, y’know, something a sexual violence survey would try to do.
>I’m beginning to hope they do release it, because damn would I enjoy watching MRAs realize they have no idea what to do with hundreds of thousands of data points.
Would you, personally?
I’m sure we could find someone.
>I don’t think you can reason with people who think there is a mass conspiracy to suppress data about female (or male) rapists, but maybe I’m just blinded by my misandry.
I do think that data about male victims is being suppressed, but I don’t think it’s caused by conspiracy. There doesn’t *need* to be a conspiracy.
I’ll try to illustrate: In the time when homosexuality was still classed as a mental disorder, I don’t think there were many surveys asking homosexuals how much they loved their partners. Because the very idea didn’t even occur to people. Homosexual sex was thought of as this mindless, bestial act. The idea that homosexual love was *real* love took decades for people to even be able to consider.
So, back to the topic at hand, there are people out there right now who literally have no idea how a woman can possibly rape a man. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen that question asked. Sometimes in disbelief, sometimes with incredulity. Men are always up for sex, right? Only a faggot would turn down sex, right? And women aren’t as sexually aggressive, right? And you can’t rape a penis with your vagina, right? The general public, if they are aware of male rape at all, either think it’s all just gay rape in prison, or that it happens in such miniscule numbers compared to female rape that it’s not even worth getting upset over. So, yes, I do think that solid data on male rape victims (and female rapists) is being suppressed. Not by a willful conspiracy, but by cultural norms. A question that can’t be conceived of can’t be asked.
I don’t think feminists are causing the suppression, but I do think their focusing almost exclusively on female victims enables it to continue.
(And yeah, I also think it’s pretty likely that, just in general, people asking for grants to study ideas that make politicians uncomfortable tend to get turned down.)
1) (blockquote) encapsulated by angle brackets to start the quote, (/blockquote) in angle brackets to end it.
2) I get the distinct impression that you are not impacted by that slur you used, so you can fuck right off with using it, particularly the way you have here. By all means, speak out against the widespread and reprehensible idea that straight men cannot be raped by women, because they want sex all the time. You can do that without implying that the most tragic use of a word that has been used as a weapon against queer men for a very long time is its misapplication to straight men. You also managed to completely erase queer male victims of rape by women, or at least show a total lack of concern for them. And you’ve ignored the ways that the stereotype of men as always ready for sex impacts queer male victims of male rapists.
Bullshit! If you want to blame someone other than the rapists for the lack of empathy or attention given to male victims of rape, try starting with other men.
Go campaign on mens’ websites. Go campaign on men’s rights websites. Stop trying to make feminists feel guilty. We see through you.
Oh, and by the way, Alex, try reading through the thread before commenting. Most of your comments – they’ve already been made and answered. You’re too late to the party.
I doubt there’s some conspiracy by the NEH or other grant-awarding institutions; the more likely explanation is that scientists are subject to the same biases and assumptions as the general public about male rape. MRAs should try launching an educational campaign, you know, like feminists did back in the days it was assumed that rape was just something that made dating “exciting.” (These days, most people who aren’t Warren Farrell don’t think that anymore!)
Also, on stats, we actually do have our own in-house resident stats expert; zie’s named Argenti. Your problem is that you have a bunch of people, like typhonblue, who think they know how to deal with statistics and datasets, but actually don’t. You all don’t know enough to consult experts, and when you do and they say something you disagree with, you fly into a frothy rage and pretend there’s a coverup.
If that “would you, personally?” means “would you do the stats” the answer is no. Because I know what sort of software you need to work with that kind of data, and I don’t have it. As for the counts of victims, you have them. If you want the counts for the cells where they’re too small to be statistically reliable, try asking the CDC, those they might release.
Thanks cloudiah 🙂
Now, I have a fish tank issue to deal with, I think that noise is just he sump saying it needs more water.
Reynard: Allright. Do you dispute MRA claims that men “forced to penetrate” ought to be counted as rape victims? And if they are, do you dispute that the percentage of male and female victims is at least much closer to equal than commonly believed?
1: We’ve said that for quite some time. We also had (in this comment thread you didn’t read) a long conversation about it.
2: Yes, I dispute youre claim that the rates of victimisation in rape is anything close to the level of nearly equal (and also note that 60/40 isn’t actually nearly equal, one of those “halves” is fifty percent larger than the other).
Bullshit (well, no, a lie
Here is the quotation (which you didn’t dare include) In the case of rape, for example, feminists are well aware that men are raped as well: the “Don’t Be That Guy” ad campaign, which sent so many MRAs into hysterics, focused on male victims as well as female ones.
Included might have been a better word, but the implication you made, that Dave said males were the focus, instead of sayin they were a focus is disingenuous as best; that its idiocy was redundant, well your ire is predictable, as is the lack of reading the comments, because that line of attack as been asked and answered.
I’m beginning to hope they do release it, because damn would I enjoy watching MRAs realize they have no idea what to do with hundreds of thousands of data points.
Would you, personally?
I’m sure we could find someone.
I’d love it.
Here’s how I see it going.
1: They get the data.
2: They look at it in baffled confusion, because it looks like nothing they expected.
3: They fail to find anyone who can do the stats; in part because this is an amount of data that takes months to crunch, in part because one has to figure out what one is looking for, determine the models needed to map the data, cull the data for the information which applies to the model; run the formulas, determine the need for regresssive analysis, apply the regressions, and then… map the results to the model and interpret it for meaning.
Ideally it ought to be tested against other studies, and the modelling methods compared; so that one can map trends; see glaring mistakes.
You know what that generally requires? Expertise and money.
I’m sure you can, “find someone”.
I don’t think feminists are causing the suppression, but I do think their focusing almost exclusively on female victims enables it to continue.
Rubbish. It’s the guys who say, “only a fool/an idiot/etc. would turn down sex” who are doing what you complain of. It’s the morons who are all up in arms about how evil consent is. Its fuckheads who prented “don’t be that guy” is evil because it doesn’t blame women for rape by not pretending women are “as likely to rape as men are”.
It’s every lackwitted shit-for-brains who looks at all of that, being done by men, and blames women for it.
It’s fools like you.
Argenti: It never occured to me that he was asking you. That would require him to accept your analysis.
Like that was gonna happen.
Isn’t it crazy how the scientists and doctors at the Center for Disease Control don’t feel like they need to provide their raw data to every random frothing conspiracy theorist on the Internet?
And yeah, fuck off, Alex. You can’t be bothered to fucking read for fucking comprehension. If you did, you would know that this is an ongoing conversation that you’ve plopped into, and that everything you’ve said is old and has already been addressed. You’d also know that many of the posters here did disagree very strongly with the CDC’s classifying “MTP” and “rape” separately; that MTP is rape; and that all forms off sexual violence are bad. You’d also pick up the fact that the CDC’s classification of different types of sexual violence wasn’t meant to be a value judgement but a classification of different kinds of sexual violence. And that matter what you call it, it doesn’t change the fucking numbers.
But yeah, take your slurs and fuck off.
Oh, I think they’d find someone. Kind of the way they “found someone” to design the new AVfM logo. They’d find someone who thinks they know what they’re doing (but doesn’t), and start from their conclusions and work backwards to try to shoehorn the data to fit those.
Alex, don’t learn to HTML. The carats give your comments a charming early 90s email forward look.
Pecunium — true enough!
So about four of you have pointed out that I haven’t read all the comments here. Well, I apologize, but I don’t have time to. On the other hand, I’m not *forcing* any of you to reply back to me. If I ask something that’s already been answered, you can ignore it.
>(blockquote) encapsulated by angle brackets to start the quote, (/blockquote) in angle brackets to end it.
Thanks very much, Viscaria. But Katz insists I keep the old method.
>I get the distinct impression that you are not impacted by that slur you used, so you can fuck right off with using it, particularly the way you have here. By all means, speak out against the widespread and reprehensible idea that straight men cannot be raped by women, because they want sex all the time. You can do that without implying that the most tragic use of a word that has been used as a weapon against queer men for a very long time is its misapplication to straight men. You also managed to completely erase queer male victims of rape by women, or at least show a total lack of concern for them. And you’ve ignored the ways that the stereotype of men as always ready for sex impacts queer male victims of male rapists.
I empathize with your offense, but I don’t acknowledge any of your accusations as valid. I chose the word ‘faggot’ because that is the word these rape-deniers use. That’s the only reason why; because it’s an honest reflection of their ugliness. I didn’t imply that was the most tragic use of the word: that was your assumption. I didn’t erase anything by not happening to specifically include it in that paragraph: that was your assumption. My only intention was to show the shaming that I’ve seen happen to male rape victims. It’s painful for a straight man to have his sexuality questioned because he didn’t want to be forced into sex, and I’m sure that would be unimaginably more painful for a closeted gay man in that same position. I would have brought up gay rape victim shaming, but that wasn’t the topic I was speaking about: I was speaking specifically about society not comprehending male-on-female rape.
And if we’re not allowed to use the language of the ignorant to show their ignorance in context, then we’re just adding to that word’s power and taboo. The only two ways to take power away from a hurtful word are to mock it, or to overuse it until it’s completely worn out.
>Bullshit! If you want to blame someone other than the rapists for the lack of empathy or attention given to male victims of rape, try starting with other men. … Stop trying to make feminists feel guilty. We see through you.
Blame isn’t inherently either/or. Rapists will always deserve the most blame for their actions. Men deserve blame for hiding male rape victims through masculinity contests and shaming. Feminists also deserve blame for having about four or five decades to include male victims in the national dialogue about rape and failing to do so.
>I doubt there’s some conspiracy by the NEH or other grant-awarding institutions; the more likely explanation is that scientists are subject to the same biases and assumptions as the general public about male rape.
That’s a perfect summation of the argument I made.
>MRAs should try launching an educational campaign, you know, like feminists did back in the days
If we did, feminists would steamroller it purely because it was us saying it. C’mon, you know you would. We’d have a rally about myths of male rape, and over the horizon would come the chanting: “Racist, sexist, anti-gay! MRA! Go away!”
>Yes, I dispute youre claim that the rates of victimisation in rape is anything close to the level of nearly equal
That’s not what I asked. I asked whether you’d concede it’s closer to equal than the general public currently believes. Because right now they think 1 in 4 women (or is it 3) are victims, and, if they’d read the CDC report, that men are 1 in 71.
>Included might have been a better word, but the implication you made, that Dave said males were the focus, instead of sayin they were a focus is disingenuous as best; that its idiocy was redundant, well your ire is predictable
Allright, let’s try this: “The cast of recurring Charlie Brown characters focused on black characters as well as white ones.” See how that statement is dishonest because there’s only one black character, Franklin, who is ever shown? Just like only one DBTG poster showed a male victim?
>1: They get the data.
2: They look at it in baffled confusion, because it looks like nothing they expected.
Yeah, because we’re so dumb. DURRR HURRR WE DON’T KNOW NUMBERS BECAUSE WE HAVE WIENERS BETWEEN OUR LEGS. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)
>Rubbish. It’s the guys who say, “only a fool/an idiot/etc. would turn down sex” who are doing what you complain of.
Yes, that’s true. Your other examples are exaggerations, but this one is true. And it’s ALSO true that feminism is ALSO to blame for the public being ignorant about male rape victims because of the choice by many feminist researchers and authors to not include male victims while they were raising consciousness about female rape myths.
>Isn’t it crazy how the scientists and doctors at the Center for Disease Control don’t feel like they need to provide their raw data to every random frothing conspiracy theorist on the Internet?
I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but when I asked for their raw data, I did so in a snarky comment on an internet forum, which they likely did not see. If I actually asked them directly, they might very well have a link to it, or something similar. My request, you see, was not meant to be taken literally. But rather it was a sarcastic way to say that rather than huffing and puffing at MRAs for getting the numbers wrong, they could instead do the calculations themselves, or allow someone else do them.
>And yeah, fuck off, Alex. You can’t be bothered to fucking read for fucking comprehension.
Fuck fuck fuck fuck! I can say fuck too! And unlike using a slur, it’s apparently not offensive to say “fuck off”! Fuck fuckety fuckfuckfuck! 😀
>You’d also know that many of the posters here did disagree very strongly with the CDC’s classifying “MTP” and “rape” separately; that MTP is rape; and that all forms off sexual violence are bad.
I’m actually extremely glad to hear that. Try to understand this; my goal here isn’t to be your enemy. My ultimate goal when I talk about anything related to gender or abuse, is maximizing help to victims who need it. If you and I are enemies, it’s because I think the good intentions of feminism sometimes blind it to seeing when its methods are ineffective.
>You’d also pick up the fact that the CDC’s classification of different types of sexual violence wasn’t meant to be a value judgement but a classification of different kinds of sexual violence. And that matter what you call it, it doesn’t change the fucking numbers.
Of course it does. How could you possibly say that!? They’re the ones that came to the conclusion that 1 in 71 men are victims of rape, instead of being honest and adding, “but if you factor in MTP, it’s actually a much different number.”
>Alex, don’t learn to HTML. The carats give your comments a charming early 90s email forward look.
Because you asked so politely, I will.
And yet, whining that CDC hasn’t made the raw available, and insinuating the CDC’s calculations of their data is somehow suspect; while the MRA’s have, indeed, completely misused and misinterpreted and twisted the findings to support their own ideology. Fucking fail.
But the CDC isn’t feminism. Please remember, this is research done by the CDC. Fucking fail.
Oh yes, please do tell me how classifying “MTP” as rape will magically change
the number of men who have been victims if MTP violence? Fucking fail.
Really? Please, do tell how MRA’s have actually helped male rape victims, rather than using these victims (who are people, who have been the victim of a crime) as a stick to beat up straw feminists with? Fucking fail.
Aww, was our delicate widdle ears burned by the swear word? But don’t see any problem throwing out a slur against homosexual men? Then backtrack when called on it? Fucking fail.
Don’t have time to read the discussion you barge in on, but do have time to talk out your ass about that which you have no idea about, and make assumptions about the views of the commenters here? Fucking lazy, fucking arrogant and big ol’ fucking FAIL.
So yeah, fuck off, Alex.
Well, if you’re just looking for an excuse not to do anything to help men, I suppose you can just make shit up to pretend that the mean feminazi under your bed made you not do it. If that makes you feel better. Me, I would be willing to take some heat if it were an issue I cared about, rather than making excuses for why I’m not doing anything, but that’s me.
Keep beating up those straw feminists, Alex.
“Because right now they think 1 in 4 women (or is it 3) are victims, and, if they’d read the CDC report, that men are 1 in 71.”
And if you’d read it you’d see that it says 1 in 6~ women will be raped at some point in there lifetime.
“>1: They get the data.
2: They look at it in baffled confusion, because it looks like nothing they expected.
Yeah, because we’re so dumb. DURRR HURRR WE DON’T KNOW NUMBERS BECAUSE WE HAVE WIENERS BETWEEN OUR LEGS. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)”
Aw, pecunium, your maths need some work because you have a wiener…wait, where’s this dashund that I’ve never met!
No, genius, he was saying that he’s seen what went into the survey here, and that was a hell of a lot less data, and that, given the MRM track record on doing things, nobody would realize they haven’t the skills to handle that sort of data.
Reynard: So about four of you have pointed out that I haven’t read all the comments here. Well, I apologize, but I don’t have time to. On the other hand, I’m not *forcing* any of you to reply back to me. If I ask something that’s already been answered, you can ignore it.
Bullshit.
You will respond to that with, “I see you can’t refute me”. It’s one of the reasons dishonest actors tend to refuse to read comments, and why they come to threads which are older, they hope to get the last word and, “claim victory”.
So, it’s nice to know you are upfront about being a weasel, and that you aren’t here in good faith.
More evidence of your bad faith. One person says, “keep the old method”, while you admit to four tell you to pull your thumb out and read the comments. Her you listen to (because it makes your life easier, or you otherwise want to, and because you can use her as a stick to beat others with), those who were being substantive, you ignored.
Got proof?
If we did, feminists would steamroller it purely because it was us saying it. C’mon, you know you would. We’d have a rally about myths of male rape, and over the horizon would come the chanting: “Racist, sexist, anti-gay! MRA! Go away!”
Unh… right. See the reason that’s nonsense is it ascribes willful malice against men to feminism. Want an example of messenger shooting? You, going on about “don’t be that guy” not talking about male rape.
You are ignorant of things you refuse to read, such as the comments here (and not just in this thread), where you would see feminists talking about male rape… but you are too busy to read about that; nope, you have to spend the time to type out 1,280 words of blather about how mean the feminists are while blaming something done by a group which isn’t actually feminists [though there are probably feminists who belong to it], on feminists: The people shouting at that rally were anti-facsists, not feminists. But you lot see anyone who opposes you as feminist. Clever that. Then you abuse us for not doing something we are already doing.
Your problem is we aren’t doing the one thing you really want… kissing your ass and telling you how important you are, just because you are a man.
Sensitive much? Tablature data from studies isn’t just numbers, it’s arrays of numbers, with values. To make it into functional data requires having models to relate one set of values to another. Then it requires formulae to convert those relational values to other values, so they can be plugged into tertiary formulae.
One has to know which formulae, and which functions are useful to test the theories in play. When one has large enough numbers of data points, with multiple variables, one has to decide which results need regressive analysis, and which regressive models to use.
It’s not numbers, any more than understanding Proust is just letters, it’s understanding the way the numbers stand in for things, and then manipulating the things (the way that words stand for things, and Proust manipulated those things,and played with the underlying connotations of words, and sentence structures; it’s knowing how to use synecdoche, where a word looks like one thing, and is doing at least two different things at the same time).
It’s not stupid, it’s trained.
That you didn’t know that (even when I expanded on just what the issues are), that’s stupid
Really… because it was a short list, and pretty narrow, I chose to refrain from hyperbole; lest you take a stab at being intentionally obtuse and pretend I meant anything I exaggerated for effect as literal.
But these, . It’s the morons who are all up in arms about how evil consent is. It’s fuckheads who pretend “don’t be that guy” is evil because it doesn’t blame women for rape by not pretending women are “as likely to rape as men are”, you call exaggeration?
When someone says, “it’s too hard to get consent”. or, “Just because she’s been drinking doesn’t mean she’s not able to consent”, or, “consent is implicit”, those guys are making it harder to make campaigns against rape, because they are blurring the lines on rape.
When a group goes around saying, “don’t be that girl” and implying that women who make accusations of rape are “date rape is just buyer’s remorse they are making it harder to focus on men who are raped; because they are encouraging men to rape, which means efforts to look at victims have to take a back seat to focusing on preventing men from perpetrating rapes.
And the MRM is all over making men think rape is just, “drunk sex”.
Then you are stupid. Not because that’s not a laudable goal, but because you could have saved yourself a lot of time if you actually read comments to pieces like this one (or gasp, read actual feminist writing), because we aren’t the enemy bubbeleh. Feminism (contra the MRM) is working to minimise rape, across the board.
Conset is sexy/yes means yes, isn’t a gendered campaign. “Don’t be that guy” was aimed at men; in a specific sort of way, but it was also about teaching people to spot the signs of a rapist. If women are engaging in that sort of behavior, a guy who has (to borrow a term from Military Intelligence) “been sensitised” is more likely to spot it being done, and work to prevent it.
But you, you are high on the horse of your moral indignation, and to busy getting off on “taking the fight to the feminists” to actually look at what they are saying (instead of what you are being told they say) and waste your time, our time, and so keep the day when victims can be the focus, just a little further away.
Good job.